Talk:Research about journalism
Journalist’s Bio’s -- an inchoate idea from March 2006 By David F. Diamond Imagine a Wikia website you can go to where all your favorite local reporters have posted their biographies. Why? So you can gain added insight into their possible leanings, biases, or tendencies to favor one viewpoint over another. The Event: An all-day seminar at the University of Memphis titled “The Law School for Journalists.” In attendance: About 200 lawyers, judges, journalists and PR professionals. When: Monday, March 6, 2005. We decided to pose a rather simple and straightforward proposition to a sampling of them and get their reactions. In the hall outside the meeting room, we spoke to some in each category. The proposition was in first draft form and suggestions for change were invited. We presented it on a 3 by 5 card and recorded their responses. Basically we asked: “What do you think?” The proposition: To provide insight for citizens (readers, listeners and viewers) there needs to be a website in which journalists provide their biographical summaries comparable to the information provided by political candidates to the League of Women Voters. It should be voluntary and should detail their political and religious leanings, interests and/or affiliation, as well as educational and geographical background. What do you think? The Replies: Some of the judges immediately liked the idea; the journalists and lawyers were generally more hesitant. The most concern was expressed over the suggestion that political and religious matters should be included. But when it was pointed out that participation was to be “voluntary” the objections tended to diminish or end altogether. TV anchor Joe Birch was both fulsome and philosophical in his comments. (Parenthetical notes are by this writer.) Now here’s what each individual said: David Yawn: I think the operative word would be voluntary. Who would be the primary audience? (The citizens) That would be one thing. (There could be refinements of the proposition) They would be much more likely to put on their professional biographies than they would political and religious leanings because if they strive to be an unbiased reporter, they are not going to try to be heavy-handed with the political or religious leanings. Now that doesn’t count if you’re a talk-show host like Mike Fleming. There are different types of reporters and they’re in a format that they’re comfortable stating their political leanings. And there are some that are trying to be as best they were taught -- to be neutral. So that’s the only other thought that I have. And their bosses make them bend over backwards to be neutral so they may aver ( maybe he misspoke and meant “demur”) from doing that part. (The reason I put those suggested points in there is that, if a reporter say, covering the Pope or a religious story, and he’s Catholic -- is it relevant that he should either say in the story that he’s Catholic or that that should be known to the reader/viewer by referring to his bio?) I think it’s fair game. And it should be voluntary. I would guess about 30-35% would submit to this. Jerry Tate: I don’t know that any journalist would want to volunteer information about their, particularly, political leanings. I think most people would say “I need to see it (the website) first.” Richard Ranta: I think they would be reluctant to do this, too. There might be an educational and geographical background in there, but when you get into what their political leanings and religious background is I think they’re going to see that as sensitive stuff and give you the impression that they can’t be objective. Of course, we try to train them so that they approach things that way without that kind of background. Every story is obviously going to have a slant, regardless of where it’s coming from. But I think you would have a hard time getting them to do this, quite frankly. (Do you think they would if you didn’t even suggest that they put in religious and political leanings, affiliations or interests?) If you put in what we call at the University “directory information” which is basic information (like” wife and two kids”) yeah, and they grew up in Northern Minnesota, like myself and graduated from blah blah blah with a blah blah blah degree; that kind of stuff, I think nobody would probably object to that. But beyond that, if you get into things that they’re going to see that people are going to use to discredit the story, I suspect that that is going to be not easily available. Judge Rita Stotts: I think that’s an excellent idea. Because I think that a person’s background and leanings certainly come into play in terms of what the output is. I had a trial this last Thursday where I had competing vocational rehabilitation experts. And one man had said “Oh, this man’s not a hundred percent disabled.” But he kind of slipped and said “I believe that it makes a person feel better if they go to work.” So I’m saying you couldn’t objectively look at the voucher that says what this man’s restrictions are because in your heart you feel that a person should make an attempt to go to work every day. He said “You’re right.” So, certainly I think (it’s a good idea) with regard to a journalist because citizens don’t go behind what they read and what they see. (But if this website existed, they would know more.) Oh, absolutely they would. (Do you think journalists would volunteer to participate?) No, they would not! (She laughed.) And you know, I grew up in an era where I grew up with Walter Cronkite and Harry Reasoner and people like that. And it was something about those folks that when they said it, you believed it. And you did not think that they had any kind of ill-motive whatsoever. So, Mr. Diamond, what has happened to those days? (Well, now we know that Cronkite is a Radiclib!) (We both laughed). Justice Janice Holder: Well, I think it’s probably a good idea, but I’m not certain that journalists would provide information about their political or religious leanings. Journalists are in the same position in many ways that judges are. And that is that they’re supposed to be neutral and unbiased. And their views aren’t supposed to bleed through their political reporting, just as judges are supposed to decide political cases. ((copy more here)) Judge Diane K. Vescovo : I think it is an excellent idea. I think readers would like to know the background of the authors of certain articles. They would like to know more about their viewpoints based on their background. Joe Birch: Well, if you go onto my website: WMCTV.com and follow the “about WMCTV” cue, and then click on the “anchors and reporters” you can find out a lot of information about each one of the employees of our on-air staff. And so, since I’ve been there for 28 years, my bio is a little longer than perhaps some of the others and you can find out some of this information in terms of my community involvement and some of the things I’ve done as a journalist. But in terms of my political or religious leanings, you can discern those kinds of things from some of the awards I’ve won. For example, I’m Roman Catholic and the Associated Catholic Charities, although they don’t only award honors to Catholics, they chose to honor me for some community work I’ve done over the years. But I’ve also received it from some other non-denominational non-religious organizations. So you’ll find that on my record. But I happen to be Catholic and for whatever reasons decided to give me an award and I accepted it. But in terms of my political points of view, I certainly have them. And my opinions I try my very best to reserve to myself. Objectivity is a daily fight. You know, we all come from different backgrounds, different socioeconomic backgrounds; we all come from different upbringings. Perhaps we went to church as children. Perhaps we didn’t. Perhaps our children were religious. Perhaps they weren’t. Perhaps they were active in political parties; maybe not. And so we all come to the table that is journalism from disparate backgrounds. I’m sure that Joe Birch, who was basically raised in basically a “Leave it to Beaver” kind of “dad goes off to work and mom stays home,” had a very different experience from a kid who grew up at Fourth and Vance, in the ghetto of Memphis, who grew up in the inner city in a , maybe, single parent household. We come to the table as journalists from very different backgrounds but we have to do our very, very best to bring our greatest effort ever to objectivity. And it is a daily fight. Lawyer Robert Hutton: I don’t know, I’d have to think about it. It might be a good idea. I guess the idea would be to see whether or not people have a particular leaning one way or the other. . . . I think a lot of times, if there is a bias on a particular reporter it would probably not typically be something that would show up in a biographical sketch. Typically, it’s going to be who you’re married to, maybe your religion. I’m not really opposed to it, but I don’t know if it would really be that useful. It might be a good idea. Lawyer Tom Henderson: I think it’s a good idea. The concept of having the journalist make disclosures like politicians is an interesting idea. I’d be in favor of it. I understand journalists might not want to. But it would help dissipate the idea that journalists are biased, or have a bias. Or it might expose a bias. Either one. The interesting part: journalists probably wouldn’t want to be held to the same standard as politicians. And that might say something too. Judge Kay Robilio: Biographical summaries could include a lot of information that would be strictly objective: where they went to school -- I have absolutely no problem with that, where they grew up. There’s a lot of biographical information that could be included. (Regarding religious and political leanings?) I don’t think that would fly, because it is slightly analogous to the situation where the newspapers say when a judge gives a ruling, “Which president appointed that judge?” Bar Association President Barbara Zarcola: Before I became a lawyer, I was a journalism major and newspaper reporter. So I don’t think this is a good idea, because I think a reporter’s job is to be objective. And they should not have detailed to the public their political or religious leanings. They should report on the facts, as they see it. Not the facts in light of whether they are Republican or Democrat, Christian or Muslim. I think a reporter should remain objective and not disclose that kind of information. (In the best of all possible worlds, they would all be objective.) We all know there is no such thing as objectivity, right? Marc Perrusquia, investigative reporter for the Commercial Appeal: I see no problem. This would probably be very helpful -- for something like the Society for Professional Journalists. They might be interested in this. It would give you some disclosure about who is who. More about who is providing your news. I think there would be some reluctance toward (religious and political leanings), because you want to try to remain neutral and objective and you don’t want to hand people ammunition to attack your stories claiming that you’ve got some bias. But there’s all kinds of ways they can find out basic information about you anyway -- that’s out in the public domain, like where you live, the kind of house you own. You’d probably have to work with the various media outlets and the people who run them. Because they’re going to have a say. They’re going to be dragging their heels a bit, I think., and have some types of restrictions on it. Because they’re concerned about those issues too, like “Is too much disclosure a bad thing?” There’s all kinds of people who want to say that you’re biased about something. . . . Political affiliations would probably be the area they wouldn’t want to delve into, that sort of thing. -0- So this is your food for thought this month. Is this a good idea? It seems the experts don’t agree. Let’s have some feedback. I’m in the Memphis phone book. :David, welcome! :Journalists' bios are welcome here. :But as you might have noticed, the site hasn't attracted much participation yet. Maurreen 05:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)